Not at all. I am pointing out that there are two different things going on.
That is what you are doing, you are making the voter choose only between 2 choices, when in fact they have more than one, because only one of those 2 choices are likely to get elected.
Why?
What on earth makes you think "that is what you do"?
Especially in a system which will actively punish you for doing that by producing a result you consider worse more often if you do that?
I agree many people think that way.
That's what they WANT the system to to incentivize.
But wishing the system worked that way doesn't make it work that way.
Of course that is what you do. You vote per your conscience. If your conscience suggests that you do not want Trump to win, and if that is the priority for you, then you vote for whoever you think has the best chance of beating Trump. If your conscience suggests that you vote for Cornell West because the Israel Palestine issue is big for you, you vote for him, whether or not he wins.
Yes, it does.
By definition.
Now, you may be happy that it helped Trump or you may be upset by it.
But in a plurality-wins system, any vote for someone hurts someone else.
If you truly have no preference between the other candidates, then what you do does not affect anything concerning your satisfaction in the result.
If you have any preference at all between the other candidates, then you have to consider whether or not your vote will produce a result that you like less than the outcome you helped create.
By that definition my choice to vote for say Cornell West or another independent, hurts Trump too. So your accusation that it helps Trump falls flat right there.
Something that is actively detrimental to you getting your preferred result overall in a plurality-wins system.
Ignoring that because you don't like that the system produces results like that doesn't change that truth,
Both choices - Trump and Biden are detrimental for this particular issue of Palestine. Say I was a voter, I may choose Cornell West or some other to ensure my vote does not go to either of the two that I dont like. If Cornell West or other independent candidates did not exist as a choice, I may choose to not vote at all. It just means you voted per your beliefs.
I am completely and utterly right on this.
Because not "playing the game" as you say it, produces worse results for the voter.
This is one of the main issues with FPTP and probably the least disputed result in electoral theory.
FPTP fails the
Favourite Betrayal Criterion.
You are being presumptuous about what is good for the voter. The voter is an individual and they will make their choices that they find beneficial for them. That includes not voting for Biden or Trump, or even anyone at all. Or voting for an independent. What exact benefit would a pro-Palestinian person have in voting in Biden? None. Trump? None. So what do they do? They either choose to not vote at all, or vote for someone who speaks their mind. Its fair enough. So no, you are still wrong about this.
This is nonsense.
You have no idea if this is the entirety of the relevant sentences.
Because it is edited.
He literally said those sentences. Those were his words. He uttered those 3 sentences. Case closed.
I know you highlighted that, but you're wrong.
You are doing a lot of interpretive work on three sentences here.
I am interpreting nothing. I am repeating translation of 3 sentences that literally came out of his mouth, word for word.
Which is wildly far from proving genocidal intent.
This is nonsense and you are the one grasping at straws.
It's like you don't understand how English works.
He said "We will eliminate everything". What is in Gaza? People, infrastructure, animals. Everything is an all encompassing term. It proves genocidal intent without a shred of doubt. I am not even quoting his other pronouncements of Palestinians as "human animals", or Israel's president saying "there are no non-combatants in Gaza" etc., Just going off of his words alone is enough to show genocidal intent. As I said, if all they wanted was to take out Hamas, they could have just said so. Its not difficult. Hamas attacked them. They could have said "We will eliminate Hamas". But he did not. He chose to say "We will eliminate everything".
You are the one grasping at straws on this one. I am simply pointing out what Gallant very clearly said.